Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37441338›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Critical action to redress systemic oppression: a person-centered approach.

Kristin Vierra, Aldo Barrita, Gloria Wong-Padoongpatt, Rachael D Robnett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kristin VierraDepartment of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, United States.
Aldo BarritaDepartment of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, United States.
Gloria Wong-PadoongpattDepartment of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, United States.
Rachael D RobnettDepartment of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In 2020, public outcry against police brutality prompted many social media users to post black squares and use the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter (BLM). Many of the people who posted these squares were engaging in performative action in the sense that they failed to engage with BLM's history and core principles. Drawing from a critical action framework, the current research seeks to more deeply understand what drives people to engage in more versus less impactful forms of action to resist systemic oppression. Methods: We employed a mixed-methods and person-centered methodological approach with the goal of providing nuanced information about factors that distinguish among individuals who engage in different forms of action. Participants were 359 undergraduates who reported that they engaged in some form of action to support BLM. Findings: Latent profile analysis identified three subgroups (i.e., latent classes) in the larger sample, which we labeled (1) intentional action, (2) intermediate action, and (3) passive action. Participants in each latent class differed from one another in their sociopolitical attitudes, sociodemographic background, and level of action to support BLM. Through the qualitative coding process, the research team unearthed three overarching themes and a range of subthemes that help to explain why the members of each class engaged in different forms of action. Discussion: We conclude by proposing a flexible intervention that may motivate individuals to engage in critical action to support BLM.

Indexed as

activismBlack Lives Mattercritical actionperformative actionsystemic oppression

Identifiers

PMID37441338
PMCPMC10333522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.